ReviewCraniomaxillofacial trauma & reconstruction2026
Sterile Versus Non-Sterile Gloves in Dental Extractions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Craniomaxillofacial trauma & reconstruction, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Healthcare-associated infections remain an ongoing concern across medical and dental practice, prompting continuous evaluation of infection prevention measures. In dental extractions, the necessity of sterile gloves is debated, as the oral cavity represents an inherently contaminated environment. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated whether the use of sterile gloves reduces postoperative socket infections compared with non-sterile gloves. A search of MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Google Scholar identified randomized controlled trials, clinically controlled trials, and observational trials directly comparing sterile versus non-sterile glove use during dental extractions. The primary outcome of this study was extraction socket infection at day 7 post-surgery. A meta-analysis using relative risk (RR) was performed for dichotomous data. Of the initial 7170 publications found, seven articles met inclusion criteria. Infection rates ranged from 0% to 3.9%, with an overall infection rate of 0.3% in the sterile glove group (672 patients) and 1.3% in the non-sterile glove group (758 patients). Three studies qualified for meta-analysis, resulting in an RR of 0.30 (95% CI 0.07-1.24), indicating no significant difference in postoperative infections between sterile and non-sterile glove usage. Given the limitations of small sample sizes, low event rates, incomplete reporting, and lack of subgroup data for surgical versus non-surgical extractions, no difference in postoperative infection was found between sterile and non-sterile glove use. Additional research is needed to determine whether glove sterility influences infection risk, particularly in surgical procedures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.